Wow, criticizing the lens because the great review of it is too old! That's a reach.

The SL-1 is a high rez APS-c and the 70-300 performs quite well on it. All the way to 300mm. Maybe I have a very good copy?

It's not a case of the review being old; it is the fact it was on 8 mp aps. Photozone do not wax so lyrical in their reviews based upon higher resolution cameras.

However as I said, at 70 to about 110 it is stellar when stopped down a little. At 200 to 300 it is very sharp in the centre, again when stopped down a little, but it is very blurred mid to edge of frame on FF, and does bizarre things with highlights. The poor mid frame is large enough to effect aps.

I'm just being realistic about the lens; my daughter has one and gets some great images, my partner in Building Panoramics has one specifically because of its creative effect.

At 200 to 300 it is very sharp in the centre, again when stopped down a little, but it is very blurred mid to edge of frame on FF, and does bizarre things with highlights. The poor mid frame is large enough to effect aps.

I'm just being realistic about the lens; my daughter has one and gets some great images, my partner in Building Panoramics has one specifically because of its creative effect.

That is really hilarious. It is a slow, consumer lens - not intended for low light venues. But, outdoors in good light, it's a fine lens. Edge to edge sharp and all the way to 300mm.

I have not been able to create the "creative effect", "poor midframe" "bizzare" highlights or "blurred mid to edge" - possibly you had a very, very bad copy. Hope you were able to return it.

I trust you realize that you linked the 70-300L? While Roger does say that the 70-300 is 'a very good consumer zoom' (consumer being a key point), he also says the 70-300L 'puts it to shame,' optically and in other ways.

Lots of comments from 'real users,' including many in the POTN thread you linked, about the lens being soft at the long end, advice to be sure and stop down at the long end, and even so, statements like '300mm @ f/9 still could not produce crisp images.' The two copies of the 70-300 non-L that I tried were also noticeably soft from 200mm onward.

I'm glad you're happy with your copy of the 70-300, as I am sure many people are. There are also people who are happy with one of the 75-300 lenses. I notice you stated that the 70-300 isn't worth $600 (it's currently $650, BTW). While paying less than half of current retail doesn't affect the optics of a lens, it can affect one's perception of that lens' performance, and it certainly affects the perceived value. Personally, if budget was a limiting factor, I'd recommend the 55-250 STM for a crop body, and I'd suggest FF users beg or borrow the $60 to cover the difference to the 70-200mm f/4L (a difference which drops to $22 if you buy the ET-65B hood, not included with the 70-300).

Of course I know I posted a link to Roger's Lens Rentals review of the 70-300 L version. I did so because, in that review, he recommended purchasing the non-L 70-300 we are discussing here. Does it compare favorably to the L version - of course not. And that's not what this discussion is about. You and another post seem to suggest the lens is a piece of trash - particularly from 200mm to 300m and around the edges, in the middle and everywhere else.

The original OP called it "embarrassing".

IQ-wise with the right settings and the right light, you'd be hard pressed to tell it from other more expensive zooms.

In low light or where lightning AF is needed, not so good.

Have you personally used it on a 5DIII or SL-1. I have. Extensively. It's quite good if you know when to use it, how to use it, etc.

Does it match anything about my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II? No, but that's not what this discussion involves.

Here, unedited is what Roger says regarding the L version and why the consumer version (which allows for the purchase of more high quality lenses) is maybe a better use of the cash:

It [the L version is] a much better lens than the $500 consumer grade Canon 70-300 IS (which is a very good consumer zoom). However, if I were putting down my hard-earned cash (OK, maybe not so hard-earned, I make my living playing with photography toys all day), I’d buy the consumer zoom and spend the other $1,000 on a Canon 17-55mm IS or Canon 24-105mm – or just get a Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS and blow $500 on groceries or something frivolous.

I trust you realize that you linked the 70-300L? While Roger does say that the 70-300 is 'a very good consumer zoom' (consumer being a key point), he also says the 70-300L 'puts it to shame,' optically and in other ways.

Lots of comments from 'real users,' including many in the POTN thread you linked, about the lens being soft at the long end, advice to be sure and stop down at the long end, and even so, statements like '300mm @ f/9 still could not produce crisp images.' The two copies of the 70-300 non-L that I tried were also noticeably soft from 200mm onward.

I'm glad you're happy with your copy of the 70-300, as I am sure many people are. There are also people who are happy with one of the 75-300 lenses. I notice you stated that the 70-300 isn't worth $600 (it's currently $650, BTW). While paying less than half of current retail doesn't affect the optics of a lens, it can affect one's perception of that lens' performance, and it certainly affects the perceived value. Personally, if budget was a limiting factor, I'd recommend the 55-250 STM for a crop body, and I'd suggest FF users beg or borrow the $60 to cover the difference to the 70-200mm f/4L (a difference which drops to $22 if you buy the ET-65B hood, not included with the 70-300).

I personally agree that the 70-300mm IS USM is not worth $649, though I paid $380 for a brand new copy and therefore I am satisfied with its performance. It *is* soft at 300mm and the 70-300mm L does destroy it. However, for under $400 prior to the release of the STM version the non-L was by far built the best and looked the best. I believe the STM version will likely outclass it optically but still be an inferior build quality.

Regarding the 70-300mm f4-5.6L vs 70-200 f4L, I believe they are for two different audiences yet in many ways I see the former as more useful than the latter.

70-300mm f4-5.6L- Slower and a bit heavier BUT...+extra 100mm of SHARP reach.+easier to fit in the lens bag, as generally width is easier to accommodate than long length+A nice complimentary lens to the 70-200 f/2.8 L, rather than one you'd want to replace due to extra reach and small size.+A far higher IQ "travel lens" alternative to the 70-300 DO IS

70-200 f4L+Faster @ constant F4 and a bit lighter BUT...-100mm less reach. Try to add a TC and you have even longer length and slower lens than the 70-300L.-longer length might make it a difficult fit in some bags-If you already have the 70-200 F/2.8L, this lens is rather redundant compared to the 70-300L

If you don't have nor plan to get the 70-200 F2.8L ever than the 70-200 f4l is a better buy. But if you do have or plan to get the 70-200 F2.8L I can see how the more compact length and greater reach of the 70-300mm L may make it a nice lens to keep in a addition to the 70-200 F/2.8... But I think one would be less enticed to keep both the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4 due to the exact same range despite weight differences.

TO address the OP...:Yes, I believe the NON-L 70-300mm is due for an update. While it is better optically and build wise than the old 55-250, it is unlikely to retain the optical edge over the 55-250mm STM and the autofocus will definitely be worse. Being that this lens has been available with rebates @ under $400 several times in the past few months, I believe Canon is going to retire it. It may not be replaced, though, as someone else mentioned the 70-300L may have actually been the replacement. For those that want something smaller and lighter than the 70-300L there are already options with the EF 70-300 DO IS and the EF-S 50-250 STM.

Of course I know I posted a link to Roger's Lens Rentals review of the 70-300 L version. I did so because, in that review, he recommended purchasing the non-L 70-300 we are discussing here.

IQ-wise with the right settings and the right light, you'd be hard pressed to tell it from other more expensive zooms.

I figured you knew you were linking a page that says the 70-300 non-L is good, rather than the page specifically about the 70-300 non-L, where he says it's put to shame by the L.

'With the right settings and the right light'? Sure - f/8-11 is a great equalizer, so is Sunny f/16. It would be nice to always shoot on sunny days or mainly static subjects, but that's not a luxury everyone has. Heck, even in low light like 150 lux, the 50/1.8 beats the 600/4 II - just ask DxOMark.

Of course I know I posted a link to Roger's Lens Rentals review of the 70-300 L version. I did so because, in that review, he recommended purchasing the non-L 70-300 we are discussing here.

IQ-wise with the right settings and the right light, you'd be hard pressed to tell it from other more expensive zooms.

I figured you knew you were linking a page that says the 70-300 non-L is good, rather than the page specifically about the 70-300 non-L, where he says it's put to shame by the L.

Man, you keep wanting to compare the non-L to the L though no one else is biting on that discussion. I would certainly hope a lens costing twice as much would put the lesser lens to shame! If you want to start a thread on such a comparison, enjoy!

This from Lens Rentals page on the 70-300 non-L:

A much better lens than its predecessor (the 75-300), this is a small, easy-to-carry zoom with great range. The Image Stabilization makes handholding possible in almost all situations, and the images are nearly as sharp as those taken with “L” quality lenses

I picked one up a few months ago when PriceWatch said the price dropped to around $400 at one of the second tier online retailers. I figured for that price it would be a good backup or I could use it for rough outdoor situations where I did not want to risk my better lenses.

I wasn't too impressed with it on the 5D3, but a few weeks ago I took it to Portland International Raceway where there was a British Car Field Meet going on. I put in on my 7D to extend the reach and kept it at F8. Here is an example taken at 300mm, F/8, 1/400, ISO 200.

Full frame:

(some sharpening applied in LR)

I later switched to my 200 2.8 L and it was noticeably sharper. I used it wide open, but with a much faster shutter speed, which more than made up for the lack of stabilization.

The point is that the 70-200/4L and 200/2.8L offer better IQ than the 70-300 non-L, even cropped to the 300mm AoV, and for similar cost.

Also, as I stated - I tried two copies of the 70-300 non-L, and found both to be unacceptably soft from 200-300mm. On an 18 MP APS-C, stopping down to f/11 was about the best compromise between lens sharpness and diffraction, and on FF away from the center, neither delivered acceptable sharpness at any aperture. Not acceptable for $650, not acceptable for $275. Obviously, I'm judging based on my own standards and for the lenses I tried, YMMV.

Here's an example of what I mean. Shot at f8 - it would have been better at f11. 300mm and you can see it is very good in the very centre, but falls off to an unacceptable level in what is still only mid frame. This picture shows it blowing the whites, some thing that both the lenses tend to do. ( This was shot on FF).

I am very happy with the 70-300 IS. It can be sharp all the way to 300mm.

Amen. I think this is one of Canon's sleeper lenses (and I own 8 L lenses and a pile of non-L). I don't use mine any more because I mostly shoot primes these days, but I used it a lot back in the day. All these are w/ thatlens: